From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #78 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 1 December 1993 Volume 04 : Number 078 In this issue: land grab ad nauseum Re: French stealth planes ? Re: What's wrong with the land grab? Re: French stealth planes ? NORA Re: NORA NORA Re: military places I'd like to visit Re: Mothballed V'berg Volunteer work at NASM? Re: NORA RE: Volunteer work at NASM? [none] [none] See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rschnapp@metaflow.com (Russ Schnapp) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 07:15:19 PST Subject: land grab ad nauseum Would someone please wake me up when we start talking about planes again? ...Russ ------------------------------ From: PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 16:32:18 MET Subject: Re: French stealth planes ? >I gess a project with 40 people is a small project, but if they all work >with stealth tech.. Can it be a stealth-version of Rafaele(sp??). I know >there is a stealth sub-muntion dispenser made in France or Italy, >that is also developed in a cruisemissile configuration. It looks like >the Teldyne UAV with a more square nosecone if I dont remember wrong. >John Erling Blad (Mon, 29 Nov 1993 17:18:53 +0100) Both _Air&Cosmos_ and _Chocs_ speak of missiles, but they don't say which ones. In _Air&Cosmos_ there is a reproduction of an infrared thermography of a plane. Though it is not very clear and though I am not an expert, I would say this plane looks very much like the Rafale... J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 08:03:26 PST Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? In an earlier SWD, tim@umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) wrote: > The government has a duty to protect the nation. A good part of > that protection stems with the Department of Defense, and for various > reasons, certain DOD assets need to remain as secret as possible from all > people without the need to know. Let's talk about "right to know", not the government's feeling that I don't have a need to know. As a taxpayer, I have a right to know how and where the government is spending my money. As someone else mentioned, this right is defined in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution. If the US government doesn't want to tell me how they are spending -MY- money, how is that different from being robbed by a street gang that says, "Just give us the money and don't ask any questions!" ?? Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 18:37:43 +0100 Subject: Re: French stealth planes ? Thats interesting! Is there any chance for you to scan this picture? Ahh, I gess there is the copyright.. Uhhmmm If you scan it and send it to me..? Perhaps I shall call some local librarys. Are there any other good rumors out there? I have heard somthing about the firm with the "flying car", any comments? John By the way is there any who knows of details that is different on the different models of Rafale *and* is visible on a infrared thermography? ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 10:16:24 -0800 Subject: NORA >Would someone please wake me up when we start talking about planes again? WAKE UP!! I got a 10 page or so write up from the House Science Committee on the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) NASP study. I had to request this document twice from the Science Committee. Interesting! One of the reasons I was so interested in this was because the new NASP research direction (ie: HYFLITE) and a competing proposal named NORA (National Orbital Research Airplane) were compared by the ASME committee for the House Science Committee. It was interesting that NORA's contractor wasn't mentioned (AW&ST published a small blurb saying it was Lockheed and Ben Rich told me to forget NORA). Anyway, NORA is also known in the government as 5-5-80. The best I've been able to find out is that this stands for 5 years - 5 billion dollars - and 80 thousand pounds. That's right! NORA is ONLY an 80,000 lb proposal! This is VERY light!!! It is at the complete opposite spectrum from the NASP which is hundreds of thousands of pounds. Also it mentions that NORA's management structure is very lean compared to NASP's proposed HYFLITE structure. Conspicuous by its absense were NASA's HALO and SAPHYRE proposals. Now Russ, what I want to know is why ISN'T the Space Society ALSO supporting airbreathing research funding for SSTO???? I've tried to reach Henry V. on this question and he didn't comment on it. I would expect that Space Access Society would want to promote all SSTO development efforts. I guess I'm wrong! Anyway, I'm asking for a show of hands on whose interested in a similar effort as Space Access Society, promoting airbreathing SSTO as well. I don't want to negatively impact DC-X at all. The position will be to develop ALL budding SSTO technologies. I can also keep people up to date on what I find out about the status of these airbreathing efforts. E-mail a response to me. Larry Smith larry@ichips.intel.com ------------------------------ From: freeman@MasPar.COM (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 11:28:10 -0800 Subject: Re: NORA > NORA is ONLY an 80,000 lb proposal! Is that the vehicle or the paperwork? > This is VERY light!!! Quite true, if it's the paperwork. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: MP%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 30 NOV 93 11:28 Subject: NORA >Anyway, NORA is also known in the government as 5-5-80. The best I've been >able to find out is that this stands for 5 years - 5 billion dollars - and >80 thousand pounds. That's right! NORA is ONLY an 80,000 lb proposal! This >is VERY light!!! Are you sure that isn't 80,000 lbs of paperwork? :-) ________________________________________________________________________ Mark Perew (714) 380-5484 | He jests at scars that never felt a wound. mp@mpa15c.mv-oc.unisys.com | cb103@cleveland.freenet.edu | -- Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene 2 ============== "All opinions are mine," sayeth the poster ============== ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 15:14:32 EST Subject: Re: military places I'd like to visit > > TRADER@cup.portal.com says... > > >5. Vandenberg Shuttle Launch Facility, CA > SLC-6... been there. > > > recent news reports have indicated that the Air Force started > > a program in the early 1980s to have their own Space Shuttle > > launch facility > > "recent" reports? That is pretty old news. The *payloads* they intended > to launch from there certainly were secret, but the construction of the > site itself wasn't. I was able to visit SLC-6 a of couple years ago. > > >50 astronauts were trained and based in Los Angeles. > Hmmm... that sounds a little strange to me. > > >Eventually, the facility was "mothballed" because the Air Force > >decided that Titan 4 missiles were a better launch platform. > > They canceled the project after the Challenger accident. > My son was scheduled for astronaut training for the Air Force. When it got scrapped, the reason given within the Air Force was that the facillity wasn't good enough. There was a worry about earth quakes and there were design flaws. Congress suposedly investigated and NewsWeek ran some negative stories. Approximate time frame was around late 1987-1988 plus or minus a year. Sorry, I can't be more specific but I know it was approximately when he graduated from Carnegie Mellon (AFROTC). ------------------------------ From: KELLEHER@casper.consilium.com Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 13:05:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Mothballed V'berg >My son was scheduled for astronaut training for the Air Force. When >it got scrapped, the reason given within the Air Force was that the >facillity wasn't good enough. There was a worry about earth quakes >and there were design flaws. Bingo! Talking with some of the Space Command folks who were taking over our buildings at Lowry when Intel training was consolidated at Goodfellow, I learned that this was indeed the reason for scrapping the project despite several billion dollars dropped on it. Although earthquakes were a long-term concern, much greater concern existed over the quality of materials used and techniques - especially welding techniques - utilized in the construction. There was so much concern about substandard performance by piping systems that Space Command wouldn't even attempt to run actual liquid hydrogen or oxygen through the lines. It was just presumed that somewhere was a problem waiting to happen, and they didn't want the thing to go up in a rather large . Theoretically, the facility could be reactivated some day in the event of dire emergency, but the cost of performing tear-down inspections would almost exceed the original construction cost. With this little detail, plus the results of the Challenger explosion, the Air Force has opted for unmanned launchers for its satellite programs, and improvements in orbital technology to provide some way by which the shuttle can perform any needed repair work on the birds. John Kelleher johnk@consilium.com ------------------------------ From: freeman@MasPar.COM (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 13:26:38 -0800 Subject: Volunteer work at NASM? I'm clueless for where to ask this for real, so thought I would try here: A colleague -- an experienced computer hardware and software engineer -- is up for sabbatical leave and would like to spend some time working intensively on something he doesn't regularly do. He asked me idly if I knew of anything like volunteer work at the National Air and Space Museum. (I have enough past contacts that I might have, but I didn't.) Any suggestions, leads or related ideas? You might reply direct by EMail to me, since this is a little off the normal group discussion topics. (Hmn... Maybe he'd be interested in volunteer work at Groom Lake ...) -- Jay Freeman freeman@maspar.com ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 14:08:31 -0800 Subject: Re: NORA I wrote: >> NORA is ONLY an 80,000 lb proposal! Jay R. Freeman responds: > Is that the vehicle or the paperwork? I wrote: >> This is VERY light!!! > Quite true, if it's the paperwork. Mark Perew responds: >Are you sure that isn't 80,000 lbs of paperwork? > >:-) Very Funny!! :) Quite a healthy skepticism coeff! OK, here's a quote from page 3 of the report: "The NORA alternative plan is based on the premise that an X-plane flight test program can be a high risk project. The proposed configuration uses optimistic projections from computer analyses to arrive at a much smaller and less expensive vehicle for achieving SSTO. Despite the optimism of the program's proponents, however, the Task Force does not believe that an eighty thousand pound gross weight vehicle would succeed in achieving orbital velocities using existing technologies. Also the five billion dollar cost estimate and five year schedule suggested by the NORA advocates are judged by the Task Force to be overly optimistic for achieving airbreathing SSTO. There is little question as to the feasibility of airbreathing SSTO. The majority of individuals interviewed by the Task Force agreed that such a vehicle could be built-if not now, at least in the future. The questions which must be addressed are questions of practicality, costs, and schedule. While there are still many technical issues which must be resolved and challenges to overcome, it is the consensus of the Task Force that airbreathing SSTO is achievable provided that the appropriate R&D investments are made to resolve technical challenges. The Task Force further believes that airbreathing SSTO has the potential to provide a breakthrough in the cost and safety of access to space. ... " I might add, that this same Task Force reviewed the DC-X/Y proposals. DC-X/Y SX-1 etc. also has its doubters. I am not one of them. I'm of the firm belief that we need to STOP talking and start flying both pure rocket and what has been called airbreathing. Many of the airbreathing proposals use rocket cycles anyway. It is true that airbreathing SSTO research WILL advance rocket technology. It's fine with me if a DC-X class of vehicle is the first successful and operational SSTO. What airbreathing research will bring to the party is enhanced SSTO capability in the future. Probably the world's foremost authority on scramjets, Fred Billig, who has been building ramjets and scramjets in the Johns Hopkins APL Ramjet Lab since the late 50's, has written that if airbreathing SSTO technology is developed, that propellant mass fractions on the order of 67% can be achieved. We shouldn't be arguing rocket versus airbreathing. We should be planning SSTO technology. This flavor of conversation probably needs to be moved to sci.space, but the NORA stuff is interesting and potentially applicable to skunk-works. Larry ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 30-Nov-1993 1733 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 17:31:11 EST Subject: RE: Volunteer work at NASM? The Smithsonian offers grants for historical research. Not sure if this is what your friend is interested in doing, but you can find information on the NASM grants in Air & Space. (Not sure if it's in every issue.) I'm sure there's an application/selection process involved. George George Allegrezza | "There's nothing wrong with him that can't be Digital Equipment Corporation | fixed with some Prozac and a polo mallet." Littleton MA USA | -- Woody Allen, "Manhattan allegrezza@tnpubs.enet.dec.com | Murder Mystery" ------------------------------ From: Max Abramowitz Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 17:05:16 CST Subject: [none] unsubscribe ------------------------------ From: Max Abramowitz Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 17:05:16 CST Subject: [none] unsubscribe ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #78 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).